Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Im April diskutierten die Herz-Kreislauf-Spezialisten aus der ganzen Welt auf dem  Kongress des American College of Cardiology (ACC) u.a. neue Therapieansätze bei akutem Myokardinfarkt, koronarer Herzerkrankung, kardiogenem Schock oder Aortenklappenstenose. In unserem Kongress-Dossier haben wir für Sie Berichte über die „Late-Breaking Trials“ und andere wichtige Studien zusammengestellt. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2008

01.09.2008 | Briefing Paper

Valuing Health States for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

verfasst von: Professor John Brazier

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 9/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This article reviews the general issues in valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis and the specific issues considered by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in its recent review of the methods of technology appraisal. The general issues are how to describe health, how to value health and who should provide the values for health. The specific issues considered by NICE included whether and what should be the reference-case instrument, what to do when there are no data using the reference-case measure, what to do when the reference-case measure is not suitable and how to judge when it is not suitable, how to review and synthesize data, and how to incorporate health-state utility values into cost-effectiveness models.
Literatur
1.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (2): 271–292PubMedCrossRef
5.
Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility function: the Health Utility Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care 2002; 40 (2): 113–128PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000
7.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​ispor.​org/​peguidelines/​index.​asp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
8.
HM Treasury. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO, 2004
9.
Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1-caveat investigator. J Risk Uncertainty 1998; 17: 5–25CrossRef
10.
Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness to pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52PubMedCrossRef
11.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
12.
Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does ‘process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laporoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (5): 285–294CrossRef
13.
Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, et al. Integrating patients’ preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 1998; 114 (4): 998–1007PubMedCrossRef
14.
Brazier JE, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, et al. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making 2008; 28 (1): 113–126PubMedCrossRef
15.
Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchyia A, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Over Active Bladder questionnaire. Value Health. In Press
16.
Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, et al. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (9): 993–1004PubMedCrossRef
17.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
18.
Gafni A, Birch S, Mehrez A. Economics, health and health economics: HYEs versus QALYs. J Health Econ 1993; 12 (3): 325–339PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11 (5): 447–456PubMedCrossRef
21.
Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1 (1): 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​pophealthmetrics​.​com/​con tent/1/1/12 [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]PubMedCrossRef
22.
McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006; 25 (3): 418–431PubMedCrossRef
23.
Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 201–208PubMedCrossRef
24.
Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scores onto time trade-off and standard gamble utilities. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 1519–1530PubMedCrossRef
25.
Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE. Mapping between visual analogue and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation. Health Econ 2006; 15 (5): 527–534PubMedCrossRef
26.
Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 599–607PubMedCrossRef
27.
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Economic Journal 2008; 118: 215–234CrossRef
28.
Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economic and ethical issues. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2002
29.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance [2nd edition: draft for public consultation]. London: NICE, 2007
30.
Fitzpatrick R, Bowling A, Gibbons E, et al. A structured review of PROMs in relation to selected chronic conditions, perceptions of quality of care and carer impact. Oxford: National Centre for Health Outcomes Development, 2006
31.
Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUB, SF-6D and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60 (7): 1571–1582PubMedCrossRef
32.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE 2004
33.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Review of the guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice-.​org.​uk/​aboutnice/​howwework/​devnicetech/​technologyap-praisalprocessgu​ides/​guidetothemethod​softechnologyapp​raisal jsp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
34.
McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, et al. Health state values from the HUI-2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ 2005; 14 (3): 231–244PubMedCrossRef
35.
Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
36.
Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utlity function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utility Index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34 (7): 702–722PubMedCrossRef
37.
Stevens K. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure [08/04 HEDS discussion paper series]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2008
38.
US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville (MD): US EDA, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​fda.​gov/​cder/​guidance/​5460dft.​htm [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
39.
40.
Brazier J, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A. Review of methods for mapping between condition specific measures onto generic measures of health: report prepared for the Office of Health Economics. London: OHE, 2007
41.
Claxton C. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781–798PubMedCrossRef
42.
Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health. Epub 2008 May 16
43.
Sugar CA, Sturm R, Lee TT, et al. Empirically defined health states for depression from the SF-12. Health Serv Res 1998; (33): 911–928PubMed
44.
Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, et al. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: (2): 103–105PubMedCrossRef
45.
Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray C, Bansback N, et al. The impact of age related macular degeneration on health state utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4016–4023PubMedCrossRef
46.
Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38 (6): 583–637PubMedCrossRef
47.
Stevenson MD, Brazier JE, Calvert NW, et al. Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women. J Oper Res Soc 2005; 56: 214–221CrossRef
48.
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the Dl valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203–220PubMedCrossRef
49.
Karnon J, Brennan A, Pandor A, et al. Modelling the long term cost effectiveness of clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (1): 91–112CrossRef
50.
Kaltenthaler E, Shackley P, Stevens K, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6 (22): 1–89PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Valuing Health States for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
verfasst von
Professor John Brazier
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2008
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 9/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00007

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2008

PharmacoEconomics 9/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Briefing Paper

Estimating ‘Costs’ for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Editorial

NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal

Briefing Paper

The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

Briefing Paper

Subgroups and Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Editorial

NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide

Briefing Paper

Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology Assessment